Developing an adult safeguarding outcome measure in England
| Published date | 12 October 2015 |
| Date | 12 October 2015 |
| Pages | 275-286 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JAP-12-2014-0039 |
| Author | Caroline Norrie,Cher Cartwright,Pritpal Rayat,Michelle Grey,Jill Manthorpe |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care,Vulnerable groups,Adult protection |
Developing an adult safeguarding
outcome measure in England
Caroline Norrie, Cher Cartwright, Pritpal Rayat, Michelle Grey and Jill Manthorpe
Caroline Norrie is a Research
Fellow at the Social Care
Workforce Research Unit,
King’s College London,
London, UK.
Dr Cher Cartwright and
Pritpal Rayat are based at Adult
Social Care Statistics, Health
and Social Care Information
Centre (HSCIC), Leeds, UK.
Michelle Grey is based at
Questionnaire Design and
Testing Hub, NatCen Social
Research, London, UK.
Jill Manthorpe is Professor at
the Social Care Workforce
Research Unit, Kings College
London, London, UK.
Abstract
Purpose –There are currently no national adult safeguarding outcome measures that focus on people who
have been through an adult safeguarding investigation in England. There is a need for local authorities (LAs)
and their partners to be able to measure whether the services provided to adults at risk of abuse and neglect
are effective. The paper aims to discuss these issues.
Design/methodology/approach –This paper describes the cognitive testing phase of a study to develop
and implement a standardised adult at risk outcome measure in adult safeguarding for use byLAs in England.
An outcome measure (a set of seven survey questions administered in a face to face interview) was
cognitively tested in three LAs with adults at risk (or their carers/advocates) for whom an investigation of
abuse had been concluded (n ¼40), with the aim of assessing whether it was commonly understood. A set of
guidance notes was designed and LA staff (n ¼12) who assisted with the survey were interviewed about its
usability and the feasibility of administering the survey.
Findings –The survey questions required modifications to improve their reliability, validity and comparability.
LA staff also suggested improvements were needed in the guidance document and survey. LA managers,
adults at risk (and their relatives/carers/advocates) were willing to be involved in the survey and it was
considered feasible to proceed with piloting the measure.
Originality/value –Thedevelopment of this unique surveyis of interest to those working in adult safeguarding,
user involvement,survey management and outcome measurement in LAs.
Keywords Safeguarding, Outcome measurement, Adult protection, Vulnerable adult, Adult abuse,
Adult at risk
Paper type Research paper
Background
Protecting adults at risk from neglect or abuse is referred to as adult safeguarding in England.
Local authorities (LAs) have lead responsibility for conducting adult safeguarding investigations
following the raising of concerns about the safety of adults at risk (a former term being “vulnerable
adults”). Many allegations or suspicions, however, are investigated collaboratively, for example,
by healthcare professionals, police officers and social workers.
Feedback from adults at risk who have been involved in a safeguarding investigation is
currently not collected systematically and their involvement in service design has been
described as limited (Cambridge et al., 2011; Graham et al., 2014; Fyson and Kitson, 2012).
This is despite substantial data collection being undertaken at LA level about the processes of
adult safeguarding (Fyson, 2015). There is therefore little knowledge about whether adults at
risk are satisfied with the support they receive during a safeguarding investigation, and little
data which can be used to compare outcomes with other LAs or inform quality assurance
activities. This has implications for benchmarking and resource allocation (Fyson, 2015; Fyson
and Kitson, 2012).
Received 3 December 2014
Revised 9 March 2015
1 April 2015
Accepted 30 April 2015
Declaration of conflicting interest:
The authors declare that there is
no conflict of interest.
This paper presents independent
research funded by the
Department of Health’s Policy
Research Programme. The views
expressed are those of the authors
and not necessarily those of the
Department of Health.The authors
are immensely grateful to all the
participants who helped them with
this study and the local authority
staff who facilitated the interviews.
The authors also acknowledge the
data collection and analysis work
of NatCen staff, Sophie Green
(NatCen Researcher), Valdeep Gill
(NatCen Researcher) and Karen
Joyce (freelance NatCen
interviewer).
DOI 10.1108/JAP-12-2014-0039 VOL. 17 NO. 5 2015, pp. 275-286, © Emerald Group Publishing Limited, ISSN 1466-8203
j
THE JOURNAL OF ADULT PROTECTION
j
PAG E 2 7 5
To continue reading
Request your trial